GP Pharmacist Removed from Register Following Sexual Misconduct Towards Colleague

Date of Decision: August 20, 2025

Registrant's Role: Pharmacist

Allegations:

On 9 September 2021, while working at Monkseaton Medical Centre:
Touched crotch against a colleague’s shoulder
Grabbed colleague’s crotch, placing hand on his penis and rubbing it
Simultaneously grabbed or squeezed his own crotch
Made the remark, “You're not going to tell anyone are you?”
The conduct was alleged and found to be sexually motivated

Outcome: Removal from the Register (with immediate interim suspension)

GPhC Standards Breached:

Standard 6 – Maintain appropriate personal and professional boundaries with the people they provide care to and to others

Case Summary

Allegations

The case against the registrant centres on serious allegations of sexual misconduct toward a colleague, referred to as Colleague A, during the registrant’s employment at Monkseaton Medical Centre under Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust. On 9 September 2021, the registrant was alleged to have committed several inappropriate and non-consensual acts, including touching his crotch against Colleague A’s shoulder, grabbing and rubbing Colleague A’s penis, and simultaneously touching his own genital area—all while in a professional setting.

Colleague A further stated that the registrant looked him in the eye and was breathing heavily during the incident, indicating a sexually charged context. After the incident, the registrant reportedly said, “You’re not going to tell anyone are you?”, which was interpreted as an attempt to silence the victim and avoid accountability.

The registrant admitted only to making the comment and denied all other allegations, attributing the contact to accidental touching due to limited space behind the reception desk.

Findings

The Fitness to Practise Committee found all disputed facts proved. The panel thoroughly considered oral and written evidence, including Teams messages exchanged between the registrant and Colleague A the day after the incident. These messages, including one stating “I misread and misunderstood” and another offering to “get a drink to make up for it,” were deemed by the panel to be incriminating and indicative of guilt and contrition rather than a simple misunderstanding.

The committee concluded that the registrant’s account was implausible, particularly in light of the physical layout of the room, video reenactments he submitted, and the nature of the alleged accidental contact. The committee believed Colleague A’s consistent and clear version of events, backed by contemporaneous reports and credible witness testimony.

The evidence overwhelmingly supported a finding that the touching was not accidental, but rather sexually motivated and deliberate. The fact that the registrant simultaneously touched his own genital area further compounded this interpretation.

GPhC Determination on Impairment

The panel found the registrant’s fitness to practise to be impaired on both public protection and public interest grounds. The seriousness of the misconduct, involving non-consensual sexual touching and subsequent attempts to suppress the complaint, was seen as a grave breach of Standard 6 of the GPhC Standards for pharmacy professionals.

Although the registrant undertook CPD, courses on sexual harassment, and offered a partial apology, the committee found these efforts insufficient. They highlighted the registrant’s continued denial of the sexual nature of his misconduct as evidence of a lack of insight and attitudinal concern. His apology, which suggested the colleague misunderstood the situation, was not viewed as genuine or unconditional.

The panel also noted that the registrant failed to adequately explore or acknowledge the power imbalance between himself and Colleague A, who was significantly younger and junior in status.

“He does not address the core issue of sexual motivation… The Committee concluded that he has not sufficiently addressed and remedied the nature of the misconduct, and he has not demonstrated a sufficient understanding of his motivations… or how to prevent it occurring in the future.”

Sanction

Due to the serious nature of the misconduct and the lack of sufficient remediation, the committee imposed a Removal Order. This means the registrant will be struck off the register. They determined that no lesser sanction—such as conditions or suspension—would adequately protect the public or maintain trust in the profession.

The committee explicitly rejected the registrant’s proposed conditions of practice (e.g., remote-only work) as insufficient in light of the gravity of the findings. Despite his efforts to remediate, the committee found that he had not sufficiently acknowledged the reasons behind his conduct and thus posed a continued risk.

In line with the decision, an Interim Suspension Order was also imposed to cover the appeal period.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

Upholding Professional Boundaries: Pharmacy professionals must maintain strict professional and personal boundaries at all times, especially in interactions with colleagues and patients. Even in casual workplace conversations, inappropriate physical contact or sexually suggestive behaviour is entirely unacceptable.
Understanding Power Imbalance: The case highlights how perceived seniority or authority can exacerbate the seriousness of misconduct. Pharmacists must be especially aware of the power dynamics at play when dealing with junior staff or colleagues.
Insight and Remediation Matter: Simply completing courses or making superficial apologies is insufficient. Insight into the motivation behind misconduct, acknowledgment of wrongdoing, and evidence of changed attitudes are essential to convincing a tribunal that the risk of repetition is low.
Workplace Misconduct Has Serious Consequences: Even a single incident of sexual misconduct in the workplace—especially one involving deception, pressure, or coercion—can lead to removal from the register. This case is a stark reminder of the GPhC’s zero-tolerance approach to such behaviour.
The Importance of Transparency and Honesty: Attempting to downplay or reframe inappropriate conduct as a misunderstanding can harm a registrant’s credibility and undermine their case. Full acknowledgment of the facts and sincere engagement with the process are key.
Professional Communications Are Always in Scope: The Committee gave weight to informal workplace messages (Teams chats) as evidence. Pharmacy professionals should be aware that all workplace communication—written or verbal—can be used in regulatory proceedings and must always be appropriate.
Consequences Go Beyond the Workplace: Removal from the register not only ends a professional career but has significant personal and financial implications. Pharmacy professionals are reminded that maintaining professional conduct is vital to safeguarding both public trust and their own livelihood.

This case serves as a sobering and urgent reminder that professional misconduct, particularly of a sexual nature, will be met with the most severe consequences by the GPhC.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.